The Department of Telecommunications issued blocking directions on July 21 and September 2, covering 34 and 95 websites respectively. The instructions relied on documents attributed to the Rajasthan High Court and Allahabad High Court, neither of which could be located in the courts’ official records.
The Allahabad High Court filed a complaint on November 6 after an internal examination established that an order supposedly issued by Justice Garima Prashad on August 14 did not exist. Police registered a case against unidentified persons under provisions covering cheating, forgery and the use of forged documents.
Court records show that the purported order cited writ petition number 30480 of 2026. A technical examination submitted on November 3 found no corresponding petition or judicial order in the court’s electronic database. The judge’s private secretary separately confirmed that she had passed no such order.
Ghanshyam Yadav, a senior cybercrime official in Uttar Pradesh, confirmed that the document was fabricated. No arrests had been announced by Wednesday. Police are examining how the correspondence originated and how the purported judicial direction reached the telecommunications department.
The Rajasthan High Court’s registrar separately stated that the document attributed to that court appeared fraudulent and was absent from its server. The two findings raise questions about how official blocking instructions were issued without the underlying judicial documents being authenticated.
The forged documents carried blue court seals featuring the national emblem, giving them the appearance of authentic judicial communications. The purported Allahabad order also included a QR code, ordinarily used to check documents, but its destination displayed only a case number rather than an authenticated court record.
A person identifying himself as advocate Kartikey Pandey emailed the Allahabad document to government officials on August 22. The correspondence subsequently circulated among officials, including a request for an action-taken report. On September 2, the department instructed internet providers to take immediate steps to restrict access to 95 listed betting websites.
The other document reached the department on July 19 in an email signed by Aryan Chaudhary, who described himself as an advocate-on-record. It demanded implementation within 24 hours and invoked legal powers permitting restrictions on online material in the interests of national security. Two days later, the department directed providers to block 34 websites.
An attempt to contact the email address associated with Chaudhary returned a notification that the recipient could not be found. An inquiry sent to the address used by Pandey received no response. Neither individual’s identity or involvement in preparing the documents has been established.
The Department of Telecommunications had not publicly explained how it checked the documents before circulating the blocking instructions. Both directives and their attachments remained accessible on its website on Wednesday. It was also unclear whether the affected websites remained inaccessible or whether any corrective instructions had been issued.
The episode exposes a procedural vulnerability in a system that can require internet service providers to restrict access to online content following official directions. Although the targeted websites were described as gambling platforms, the authenticity of a court order is a separate question from whether the underlying activity breaches applicable law.
The case follows another dispute over fraudulent takedown demands. Social media platform X told the Delhi High Court that notices submitted in the name of a Delhi police officer, seeking restrictions on accounts belonging to two digital rights organisations, had been found to be fake. Police subsequently registered a separate investigation.
The Allahabad High Court complaint identified several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita concerning forged records and deception. Investigators are seeking to establish the source of the emails, the people responsible for producing the documents and the circumstances in which they were processed by officials.
The court’s chief justice authorised further action after the internal verification, and the registrar’s complaint was submitted to police in Prayagraj, where the disputed document was examined.
The fabricated Allahabad order bore the name of Justice Garima Prashad and purported to concern a case styled Sahil Singh versus the Director General and others. Its QR code led to a page showing the notation “Writ – A 30480/2026”, rather than a verifiable judicial entry.
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
